Options for Thames estuary airport expansion

Follow the author of this article

Pro: An embryonic scheme, designed by Douglas Oakervee, who oversaw the construction of Hong Kong airport. It would see a new airport being built on an artificial island on the Shivering Sands area, north east of Whitstable, Kent. Starting from scratch in a sparsely populated area should enable an airport to be built which would be capable of coping with the anticipated expansion in demand for aviation. Any airport built to the east of London would mean that millions of people would no longer suffer the problems of aircraft noise. It would also avoid the risks entailed of flying an aircraft over a major city. A large airport could end many of the delays faced by passengers flying to Heathrow, where stacking is a daily problem as planes wait for a landing slot at Heathrow. Building a state of the art airport should prevent London's decline as an airport hub and enable the UK to compete with continental rivals, who are already offering far more flights to emerging markets such as China. Initial estimates suggest 100,000 jobs could be created at a new hub airport.

Cons: Doubts have been raised over the viability of building an airport on a man-made island although this was done at Hong Kong. The plans are sketchy . Critics also believe that it could take 20 years to deliver the project, although this is disputed by Boris Johnson. There is the issue of bird-strike and the threat posed by the SS Richard Montgomery, an American wartime ship packed with unexploded bombs and shells. The project has run into strong opposition from environmental groups who have voiced fears that it willthreaten sensitive wildlife areas for winter breeding birds, which are protected under European law, including the avocet and the redshank

Lord Foster’s Thames Estuary Airport

Pro: The project would make use of the sparsely populated Isle of Grain in the Thames Estuary with the £20 billion airport forming part of a £50 billion transport hub linked to a high speed rail network. Unlike the Oakervee proposals, this scheme has been worked out in some detail and has also been welcomed by Boris Johnson as a viable alternative to the Oakervee scheme. It also offers other regeneration benefits abnd environmental benefits. According to Lord Foster private investors have already expressed interest in the scheme.

Cons: The proposed airport would be built close to one of the world’s largest liquefied natural gas terminals as well as the SS Richard Montgomery. There are also concerns about the threat of bird strike on aircraft using the airport. Both projects would also have to tackle the issue of flight paths, given the proximity of Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport. Both estuary projects.

Stansted

Pro: Stansted was due to have a second runway under plans drawn up by the previous Government, which were ditched by the Coalition. Given that the airport nestles in farmland, expansion would have posed fewer problems than adding a third runway at Heathrow. Relatively few people would have been art risk of an increase in aircraft noise. Road connections already exist linking the airport to London and Cambridge, one of the homes of the UK hi-tech industry and a growing market.

Cons: Although road connections are good, the same cannot be said about rail. Although there is a Stansted Express service, the track is inadequate to serve a major airport. Substantial investment in upgrading the line would be needed. Plans to expand the airport did face strong opposition from local campaign groups. Plans for a second runway would have entailed the the destruction of 87 properties, including 25 listed buildings in rural Essex. It will also lead to the villages of Bambers' Green and Molehill Green being flattened.Essex county council, which is vigorously opposing Stansted's expansion, estimates that around 5,000 homes face being blighted. Even an upgraded Stansted would struggle to attract major long-haul airlines who are wedded to Heathrow.

Gatwick

Pro: Very good connections to London already, by rail and road. The Gatwick Express, which was under threat, survived and Victoria station is only 30 minutes away. Brighton and the South Coast is also 35 minutes. Gatwick also has room to grow. Unlike Heathrow which is full, the airport runs at 78 per cent capacity. Its current draft master plan, based on one runway and two terminals predicts the airport will be able to handle 40 million a year by 2020.

Cons: Major expansion such as a second runway would face strong local opposition. A local planning agreement with West Sussex County Council precludes the building of a second runway before 2019. Despite luring some new airlines, Gatwick will have to work hard to lure carriers away from Heathrow. Should a second runway go ahead as originally planned, the village of Hookwood would be destroyed. Charlwood, which dates back to 1060, would be sandwiched between the new north and south runways and rendered uninhabitable.

Birmingham Airport

For – High speed rail will mean Birmingham International Airport will be a 38 minute journey from Euston, in the heart of London. It would bring the airport closer to the capital than Stansted. Once the network is complete, Birmingham Airport would be only 48 minutes from Leeds and 38 minutes from Manchester. It has already been seen as a potential safety valve for the overcrowded South East. It also has permission to extend its runway by 400 metres, which means that destinations such as China, Cape Town and the American West Coast would be within reach.

Con – The distance from London and the potential rail fare could prove a barrier. There is a danger that it could cost more to take the train to the airport than fly from it. There has been some local resistance to the expansion plans, with concerns raised about noise generated from additional flights. It could be hard to “sell” Birmingham as London’s newest airport.